Seems to me that there's a good deal of wilful ignorance of the basics of this argument here, in favour of single-service, or even single-aircraft side issues.
The UK Government, rightly or wrongly, has decided that its Services will, within the constraints of the Defence Budget, arrange themselves to be capable of, and ready for, expeditionary warfare. Fundamental to that capability (in the Government's view) is the Navy's ability to project carrier groups to areas of foreign-policy interest.
It is surely, then, totally illogical for the Government to now announce that those carrier groups will be denied the only airborne air defence assets they can currently rely on? It is irrelevant what other capabilities might or might not be sacrificed to keep the carrier-borne AD assets. It is certainly not helpful to use the argument as a cover to attack other branches and resources of the Services.
If this capability is genuinely useful and desirable, then the case should be made for its retention - and for the provision of extra funds to do so if necessary. It should not be the cause of a 'turf war' between the stormtroopers of the various interest-groups within the armed forces.
We are, I believe, all on the same side. Aren't we?